Everyone is created equal. If a culture can't accept that then that's a piece of the culture that needs to change. Because its someone's culture doesn't make it sacred - cultures have practiced slavery, human sacrifice, and cannibalism in the past. Should we have ignored those and said 'well hey as long as they aren't enslaving us, or sacrificing us, or eating us...As far as women saying 'yeah we like being unequal' - you can get a hostage to love their kidnapper (Stockholm syndrome), a battered wife to say its all her fault, or a woman in saudi arabia to say its ok she isn't equal under the law. That's not worth to much and is ridiculously unpersuasive. No doubt there were proponents of slavery (the South), human sacrifice (Aztecs), and cannibalism (Caribs) too. Why do you keep saying this - did some professor give a lecture excluding the PRC or something?
Because it keeps popping up. It's not my invention. Check the links or ask Jeane Kirkpatrick, who considered the government of PRC of 1980s was an authoritarian government. You'd agree PRC today is more progressive than PRC of '80, wouldn't you?
I looked at the links. What distinguishes the PRC from the explanation provided for a totalitarian regime?
From wikipedia: "Totalitarianism is a modern regimes in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior... by means of secret police, ..., widespread use of terror tactics" CCP doesn't do that. I'd say Mao's era was close to totalitarianism, though. More distinction: "According to Kirkpatrick, authoritarian regimes are primarily interested in their own survival, and as such have allowed for varying degrees of autonomy regarding elements of civil society, religious institutions, courts, and the press. On the other hand, under totalitarianism, no individual or institution is autonomous from the state's all-encompassing ideology."
You think Mao's era was only close?? Wow. From the definitions you gave yourself, I would put Mao's China down as totalitarian. Today's China might fit the authoritarian regime description better, in my opinion, although the regime isn't shy about slapping down any freedoms that have sprouted, if they think it somehow might threaten their grip on power. I don't know, wnes. In some ways, it's a close call. Keep D&D Civil.
"the regime isn't shy about slapping down any freedoms" First of all, the Chinese are enjoying all kinds of economic freedom -- probably as much as the Americans in US. As far as political and religious freedom are concerned, yes, they are limited. But CCP has been allowing more and more dissent voices in recent years. Criticism of government is commonplace in China. Many local level government officials are democratically elected. There are also more churches of various faith per 100,000 inhabitants in China than in Japan. I don't want to sound like an ass, but I think folks like you and hayes really need to visit China personally to know it better. US media bias when reporting China is very prevalent here.
go check out the exchange rate buddy, saudi aint that bad and NObody works for 3 riyals a day, try 3 riyals per mile. anyways, ya, i think that saudi should work on the driving thing, and the voting thing... but i also think that america should work on the imposing its ideology on other people thing. and england should work on the not nodding its head to everything we say thing.
How do you feel about gay marriage? Also rights and equality are subjective, right to speech, right to privacy, right to press and many other thing have came to be redefined by the patriot act just very recently. And what about other rights such as pursuit of happiness? How would you quantify the amount of free speech is given? Look at flag burning, that is now considered illegal in the United States, do you consider that a right? Some in this country does. If everyone is equal, but equal in the aspect that they have very limited rights, is that a good situation? What about almost every one is borned into a situation where they have few rights and priviledge, but there's the oppurtunity, though not always equal to get to the top and afford more rights and priviledge.
Flag burning isnt illegal. Every year Congress tries creating a constitutional amendment banning it but it always fails. So burn your flags if you so desire.
they arent directly on their way, and they have bigger worries right now, see: terrorism but god willing, soon they can fix their internal problems and then soon focus on womens rights ( which imo in the past 10 years has vastly improved).
They don't regulate public and private behavior? They don't, for instance, regulate religious practices, or what you can or can't say on an internet bbs? Is there an autonomous press in the PRC? And even if you're right about this distinction - how is visiting China going to change my outlook? If I grant you that its an authoritarian state, am I going to say that's good? OK by me in the absence of a reason not to allow it. Equality is not really subjective. If everyone has the same rights without regard to their race or gender then they are equal. The patriot act doesn't say 'women can't x' for example. A class of people is not excluded. Further, I see this a lot on this bbs - its a mistake to think that pointing out a flaw in the US somehow negates a flaw somewhere else. If sexist oppression is happening in Saudi Arabia, the existence of sexist oppression in Europe or the US doesn't validate that oppression in Saudi Arabia. It just means there is something that needs to be fixed in the US or Europe as well. But in this example, the sexist oppression is not codified into law in Europe or the US, so IMO we're one step farther down the road. Although again that doesn't really affect the argument one way or the other. Not sure why this is relevant to my statement. Whether or not everyone has a lot of rights or not isn't the question. They question is should one class be excluded because of their classification - be it gender, race, economic status. The answer is no because we are all equally human beings.
Actually, they're much farther ahead than folks think. Just yesterday, King Abdullah issued a decree allowing women to work in the government and many private sector companies are hoping to follow suit. Women voting will be a reality within the next 2-3 years, and would have happened in the first open elections held earlier this year, were it not for logisitics issues ... having enough women to man (woman? ) the polling stations, etc. This is the first year men got to vote here too, so it's not that it's a right denied to women for ages ... nobody was given this right. Already at work, we can see changes being made to accomodate women ... ladies restrooms, separate sitting/eating areas, prayer areas, etc. Driving has been in the public debate over the past few months, and word is that it will be put to vote in the very near future. Altho, a lot of the women really are against this ... which boggles my mind. The consensus is that about 40% of the population is staunchly against this, and 70% passes the law - let's see what happens. And labor is DIRT cheap ... I get a guy to wash/wax my car 8 times a month for $30. My maid cleans my house 6 times a month for $40. And this is living on a Western compound where rates are generally higher.
Productivity goes up but not necessary productivity. Productivity goes up but a lot of that increase is frivolous productivity. Thanks wnes. That did look weird.
Yes they sure regulate some (but not nearly every) public and private behaviors, including religious practices and what can be said on internet bbs. Also there's no autonomous press yet. But that's not the point. What I am arguing is while there exist some elements that could be called either way, there are clear distinctions between an authoritarian state and a totalitarian regime. If we freely exchange these two political terms at will when dealing with nations like China, we are not really holding ourself to a very honest and principled standard. [More on totalitarianism (the highlighted portions have no place in PRC today) : "the defining elements ... comprised of the following: an elaborating guiding ideology; a single mass party, typically led by a dictator; a system of terror; a monopoly of the means of communication and physical force; and central direction and control of the economy through state planning."] By visiting China and talking to people of different walks of life over there, you open yourself to an evolving country and gain first-hand experience, something you are not likely to get by merely reading reports from US media. You can then compare that to your long-held perception about China. You may be surprised. That's a hard question, my guess the answer is no. But I venture to say you are not just looking for statements like "we are good, they are bad", are you?
Naugthy! You took that sentence out of context. Today's China might fit the authoritarian regime description better, in my opinion, although the regime isn't shy about slapping down any freedoms that have sprouted, if they think it somehow might threaten their grip on power. That's what I said. I stand by it. I read the other day about new restrictions on internet use, and more extensive policing of Chinese use of the net, just as an example. That would ruin my day. I won't really argue that China today fits the authoritarian label better than the totalitarian one. I will say, however, that most Americans, were they asked, would say they value personal freedoms more than their economic freedoms, both of which they have a lot of, although, in some aspects, imo, personal freedoms are under assault here. As for needing to go to China to understand it, I've been to Hong Kong. Does that count?? Keep D&D Civil.
